Am I being paranoid?

Two images below - both identical - I have highlighted an area on the bottom one, which is irritating me.
The same phenomenon is showing up on other images too.
If the bird is facing toward the right, it always seems to show up in roughly the same place.
Could it possibly be caused by that the focus point is on the eye and it is out of focus plumage -reverse D-O-F in layman's terms - not forgetting, that I am shooting in their face, so to speak and the area it seems to occur in, would be the spot most nearest to the lens, which could be 20/30mm closer than the eye.
Using the 12mm ext tube, I am fooling the lens into focusing at less than it's stated minimum focussing point of 3.5 metres - the length is more like 2.8 to 3.0 metres
I first noticed it over a week ago - I can't see it being the sensor and admittedly, when I first noticed it occurring, there was fair smear on the lens, but that has since been cleaned.
Any suggestions will be gratefully accepted
Adrian
[epzimg]-k121484.jpg[/epzimg]
[epzimg]-k121483.jpg[/epzimg]

Two images below - both identical - I have highlighted an area on the bottom one, which is irritating me.
The same phenomenon is showing up on other images too.

If the bird is facing toward the right, it always seems to show up in roughly the same place.
Could it possibly be caused by that the focus point is on the eye and it is out of focus plumage -reverse D-O-F in layman's terms - not forgetting, that I am shooting in their face, so to speak and the area it seems to occur in, would be the spot most nearest to the lens, which could be 20/30mm closer than the eye.

Using the 12mm ext tube, I am fooling the lens into focusing at less than it's stated minimum focussing point of 3.5 metres - the length is more like 2.8 to 3.0 metres

I first noticed it over a week ago - I can't see it being the sensor and admittedly, when I first noticed it occurring, there was fair smear on the lens, but that has since been cleaned.
Any suggestions will be gratefully accepted

It seems to me that the 'blur'is too delineated to be 'out of focus' areas, and also it seems to follow the curvature of the wing round the body. Some birds have very fine 'undercoat' of soft downy feathers and it is winter when their coat is more fluffed up so given that this 'effect' follows a line just above the wing primaries, it may be these fine feathers showing through.
Do you have some strong binoculars that you can check it next time?

It seems to me that the 'blur'is too delineated to be 'out of focus' areas, and also it seems to follow the curvature of the wing round the body. Some birds have very fine 'undercoat' of soft downy feathers and it is winter when their coat is more fluffed up so given that this 'effect' follows a line just above the wing primaries, it may be these fine feathers showing through.

I have taken the picture into PSE 9 and deliberately overdone Unsharp Mask (Amount 156, Radius 9) and it does seem to be undefinable feather structure. There are similar bits down the back as well but not as obvious.

I have taken the picture into PSE 9 and deliberately overdone Unsharp Mask (Amount 156, Radius 9) and it does seem to be undefinable feather structure. There are similar bits down the back as well but not as obvious.

Just been checking some other shots from yesterday - Blue tits and the rest.
Given that the point of focus is on the eye (hopefully), then if it was something caused by the camera or the lens, then it would always be in the same relative spot.
It isn't, but still appears to be on the point closest to the lens/camera
You may well be correct Mike - I hope you are;)
Adrian

Just been checking some other shots from yesterday - Blue tits and the rest.
Given that the point of focus is on the eye (hopefully), then if it was something caused by the camera or the lens, then it would always be in the same relative spot.
It isn't, but still appears to be on the point closest to the lens/camera

The above was taken at f/8 with Canon 400mm 5.6 prime
The EXIF distance states 4.23 metres, but I know it was closer than that
The point is Mike, it is something I have only noticed very recently. Loads of images taken between f/6.3 and f/10 without it occuring.

The above was taken at f/8 with Canon 400mm 5.6 prime
The EXIF distance states 4.23 metres, but I know it was closer than that

The point is Mike, it is something I have only noticed very recently. Loads of images taken between f/6.3 and f/10 without it occuring.

That is possible Nick, but I do check it regularly when I am out.
Co-incidentally, the one thing I do suffer from, during the cooler conditions, is the viewfinder misting up - due to my breathing into it without thinking - forever having to wipe it:)
That would have no bearing on the subject though, or would it?
Adrian

That is possible Nick, but I do check it regularly when I am out.
Co-incidentally, the one thing I do suffer from, during the cooler conditions, is the viewfinder misting up - due to my breathing into it without thinking - forever having to wipe it
That would have no bearing on the subject though, or would it?

[quote]That would have no bearing on the subject though, or would it?
[/quote]
Not unless they're planning on using the camera as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Perhaps I'm missing the obvious here, but what exactly are you asking???? What phenomenon?? All I see is two identical images.

Quote:That would have no bearing on the subject though, or would it?

Not unless they're planning on using the camera as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Perhaps I'm missing the obvious here, but what exactly are you asking???? What phenomenon?? All I see is two identical images.

Just looking at my upload this evening and going on what Mike mentioned, I reckon it is the down feathers creeping over the blue.
The weather has only recently turned cold - perhaps that is the reason and if so it is perfectly natural

Just looking at my upload this evening and going on what Mike mentioned, I reckon it is the down feathers creeping over the blue.

The weather has only recently turned cold - perhaps that is the reason and if so it is perfectly natural

I might have answered my own question:)
The image below is a blown up part of the TIFF image after RAW processing, but no sharpening
It does indeed look like feather growth of a different shade and pattern
[epzimg]10-capture.jpg[/epzimg]

I might have answered my own question
The image below is a blown up part of the TIFF image after RAW processing, but no sharpening

It does indeed look like feather growth of a different shade and pattern